From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6210
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch))
Date: 15 May 1996 04:07:23 +0200
Message-ID: <x691euofj8.fsf@eyesore.no>
References: <m2wx2laesk.fsf@deanna.miranova.com> <x6k9yly0dx.fsf@eyesore.no>
	<d991f12t6c.fsf@ashoka.cs.umn.edu>
	<m24tpp9pf8.fsf@deanna.miranova.com> <x6u3xovydp.fsf@eyesore.no>
	<ufa4tpjhnob.fsf_-_@sina.hpc.uh.edu>
	<rjafzba1c8.fsf@babbage.dina.kvl.dk>
	<x7spd35nqo.fsf@unilab.dfci.harvard.edu>
	<rj7muf9t0s.fsf@babbage.dina.kvl.dk>
	<m2wx2fnlgp.fsf@galaxy.atlissc.ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146698 2873 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:44:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06585 for <steve@miranova.com>; Tue, 14 May 1996 20:53:45 -0700
Original-Received: from ylfing.ifi.uio.no (4867@ylfing.ifi.uio.no [129.240.94.25]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <FAA04215@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Wed, 15 May 1996 05:26:16 +0200
Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by ylfing.ifi.uio.no ; Wed, 15 May 1996 05:26:16 +0200
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: "Sudish Joseph"'s message of 14 May 1996 14:44:38 -0400
Original-Lines: 25
X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.85/Emacs 19.29
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6210
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6210

"Sudish Joseph" <sudish@VNET.IBM.COM> writes:

> Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> > I'd say massage the subject as much as you want for presentation
> > purposes in the article and subject buffers, but when you generate a
> > reply or followup, make the default subject line be in strict
> > compliance with The Seal and with Son-of-RFC1036.
> 
> Amen.

Indeedy.  Just because we feel it's totally neat-o-keano to rewrite
"Re[145]: re^4: WORD TOTALLY RO=?ISO-X-666?ABNSAGHS?=OOLZ!!!!!!!!! -reply" 
to "Re: Word totally sucks!", that doesn't mean that everybody will
agree.  By sticking totally to The Seal and RFC1036 we give those
standards greater legitimacy and have a greater chance of getting
writers of non-compliant software to get their acts together.  They
will then not be able to say "Oh, but that thing also rewrites Subject
headers, so we can do to."  No.  We comply with the standards.

If users decide to rewrite Subject headers manually -- that's up to
them.  

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."